Is United States Ethical Enough
To Judge Others?By Badruddin R. Gowani
There is a great deal of war incitement in the US media and war opposition in the international press about the looming war which the US wants to wage against Iraq because it possesses, according to the US government, "weapons of mass destruction" or WMD. It is, of course, a highly noble idea to destroy WMD and to make this world a safe place; after Iraq, this project should be extended all over the globe. Who in her/his right mind would oppose peace - that is, a genuine peace?
However, there should be a good enough reason for initiating a war and should be presented to the whole world in an unambiguous manner. It is precisely this, that is missing from the whole fiendish drama being played our twenty-fours every day; it probably won't end till new weapons are tested on Iraqi heads, old weapons are gotten rid off, Iraq is "liberated," and "democracy" is established. Then the "greatest democracy" would be on the loose again to hunt a new "Hitler" - probably North Korea's Kim IL Sung, or Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, or Iran's clergy. Meanwhile, the United Nations' inspectors assigned for this mission have so far failed to produce any evidence that Iraq has any such weapons. Nevertheless, the US is unwilling to accept the UN findings; instead, it is trying hard to prove its point.
In itself, it is a roguish idea to send UN inspectors - at one country's forceful insistence - to go and check a non-nuclear and a devastated country, devastation caused by the same power who is now insisting for a check up, for weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, one has to remember:In these changed times, reasoning should be considered risky, obedience should be turned into an obsession.Or to put it little differently, one can recite a line by a South Asian poet: The prevailing custom dictates that no one should walk with an upright head.
When hatred crosses a reasonably acceptable level, it can push an individual, an institute, or a nation towards foolishness and/or
ferociousness. The US, being a Super Power, is endowed with both qualities, and is exhibiting it unabashedly.Last Thursday's US spectacle in the UN is a proof of that. Up until now, the so-called "dove," Colin Powell, had at least - if nothing else - some outward looking dignity, which he lost when - with a map in the background and a small bottle of anthrax in one of his hands - he tried to convince the US public and the world as to how dangerous Saddam Hussein is.
Well, without wasting any time, let us proceed to the question, is US ethical enough to judge others? However, a judge should meet certain criteria in order to qualify for that position:
Should be peace loving
Should be devoid of weapons of mass destruction
Should be respectful of all the countries, big and small
Should be elected by the UN General Assembly - and not the UN Security CouncilPeace loving:
Many people lack mental-peace; US lacks war-peace. It either is at war (small/big, overt/covert) with some or other country, or is supporting some or other country that is at war. Bahadur Shah "Zafar" (1775-1862)(1837-1858), a South Asian Emperor, who was also a poet, musician, and a calligrapher, once wrote:
"Had asked for and were granted four days
two passed away in desiring and
the other two in waiting"
(The four days refers to a human life span.)
With a slight change, one can say of the US:
Had asked for and were granted four days two passed away in building coalitions and the other two in making warsThe coalitions are made on a grand scale and the wars are even grander. Though nowadays, there is not much talk of the war casualties or threats of killing a big number of people, back in November 1973, the 37th US President Richard Milhous Nixon (1913-1994) (1969-1974) had threatened:"I can go into my office and pick up the telephone and in twenty-five
minutes seventy million people will be dead."
(Quoted in Fan Yew Teng, "Crimes Against Humanity: The Dominant West's 'Human Rights' Record," pp. 13-45, in Chandra Muzaffar (ed.), "Human Wrongs: Reflections on Western Global Dominance and its Impact Upon Human Rights," Pune, India: The Other India Press, 1996).Of course, the magic of nuclear weapons. Saddam and others can only dream of such power.
Few days ago, one of the three AOL (American on Line) headlines which attacks you like a Tomahawk missile the minute you enter the internet world casually announced: "In by March, Out by June." The announcement was not about a vacation on an Iraqi desert resort; it was some experts' view about the US troops going into Iraq in March, Remove-Saddam-install-puppet, and leave by June. No deaths, refugees, blood, destruction or any such unpleasant or tragic things are mentioned. You watch news, discussions, talk shows in the US and it is the same. The hosts interviewing the government officials would ask, "Are we going to war?" Not, "Are you going to war?" In a way, there is nothing wrong. The big corporations run the government and the big corporations own the big TV and radio stations, and print media, and so the news people working for them become - indirectly - a part of the government. (However, the top anchorpersons making millions of dollars are always quite close to the government officials, and dine and wine with them frequently.)
Devoid of weapons of mass destruction: Alas! Such is not the case. The Centre for Defense Information (CEDI) has given the figures for the 2003 US defense budget on its website and has compared it with other countries' defense budgets to give an idea about United States' defense expenditures vis-à-vis other countries.
For the fiscal year 2003, the US has asked for $396 billion, which is six times larger than Russia. By the way, Russia stands second in defense spending. And it is 26 times larger than the combined budget of all the so called "rogue nations" - Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria!
(For more details, please check http://cdi.org/ and US government's Department of Defense website
http://defenselink.mil/pubs/almanac/US has thousands of nuclear weapons, has twice used them
Against Japan, and has threatened to use them on several occasions.In addition, one has to take into account the threatening postures. Present situation is as follows:Iraq has never sent any air force planes within many thousand miles of US vicinity. It does not have any aircraft carriers and so the question does not arise. It has never imposed any kind of embargo on the US or any other country.
On the other hand, the United States has got everything - air force planes, surveillance planes, aircraft carriers, submarines, ships, nuclear weapons, military personnel - in short, everything that is needed to create a carnage - is over and around Iraq. (US follows a very good rule of not disclosing - "as a matter of principle" - whether its planes or ships contain nuclear weapons or not. In the 1980s, New Zealand protested and demanded that the US should disclose whether its ships carried nuclear weapons or not. The US just reiterated it high "principle.")
Since 1991, the US imposed embargo has killed half a million people, while the US and Britain had been constantly flying over Iraqi territories and have bombed many times under some or other pretext. The US has also divided Iraq into three zones; and along with Britain, it patrols the northern and the southern parts.
(The US has imposed economic sanctions on dozens of countries at some or other time and its peace record is littered with unlimited aggression.)
The US accuses that Iraq is developing a nuclear weapon. It is hard to understand the logic behind this accusation.
Let us say there is one Mr. W who has 10,455 guns, and there is Mr. S who has none. One day it so happens that Mr. S became somewhat a victim of inferiority complex, but more so out of fear of a neighbor, Mr. A, who possesses more then 200 plus guns, and so he planned to make a gun. Mr. W started screaming and demanded that Mr. S stop making the gun.
Now the question arises, should Mr. W object and try to stop Mr. S from making a gun? The common sense would dictate that Mr. W should not object until Mr. S starts making his gun number 10,456. Nevertheless, if Mr. W insists that Mr. S should not make a gun or guns there is something seriously wrong with Mr. W's mental capacity to think in a reasonable fashion. The immediate action on part of the Family of Nations, including
Mr. S, should be to disarm Mr. W before he becomes very insane and commits some or other violent act, thereby becoming a threat to world peace. This is simply a case of jealousy and paranoia and should be treated as such in an urgent manner. Nevertheless, on humanitarian grounds, a chance should be given to Mr. W to avoid humiliation: he should be asked to think rationally - however, under the present mental status, almost an impossible proposition - and to go for total disarmament in a gentlemanly fashion through a world body. Once Mr. W agrees for total disarmament, others (either in possession of a single gun, or hundreds, or thousands of guns) should be asked to do the same - because, otherwise it would be unfair to Mr. W.The moral of the story: either all should have the weapons of mass
destruction, or none should possess a single such weapon. Besides, possessing nuclear weapons is not enough; one should also have a launching capacity of at least 12,500 miles or 20,000 kilometers - the earth's circumference being 25,000 miles or 40,000 kilometers - to be on the safe side.(Coincidentally, the US has the same number of nuclear weapons as Mr. W.)Respectful of all the nations:
There was a time when the US would abuse and humiliate small nations. Times have changed: now it does not care for even big nations. Germany and France are in the forefront in opposing the US efforts to initiate a war, but they are dismissed as non-entities.Meanwhile, the CEO, George W. Bush who likes to be called "Dubya," (after his middle initial) is busy in his prayer meetings. Mahesh Bhatt, a South Asian filmmaker, was invited to attend one such meeting. On second thought, Bhatt refused an invitation to attend the 51st National Prayer Breakfast meeting with Bush on grounds that it would amount to condoning the "born again Christian Bush's terrorism of demonic proportions around the globe." He pointed out that the US "has entered one of its worst periods of historical madness." Any comparison between Saddam and the US or Britain, he noted, is to compare an ant to an elephant. ("Mahesh Bhatt Refuses meeting with Bush," Press Trust of India (PTI), report, February 4, 3003.)
Bhatt has hit the bull's-eye. Back in the mid 1960s, another cowboy from Texas, while warming the White House cushions, was decoding the US interpretation of democracy to the Greek Ambassador when the later raised an objection to the US plan of dividing the independent Republic of Cyprus between Turkey and Greece because "no Greek parliament could accept such a plan." The 36th US President Lyndon Baines Johnson (1908-1973) (1963-1969) did not have the gun with him so he fired verbally:"Fuck* your parliament and your constitution. America is an elephant, Cyprus is a flea. Greece is a flea. If these two fellows continue itching the elephant, they may just get whacked by the elephant's trunk, whacked good. If your Prime Minister gives me talk about democracy, parliament and constitution, he, his parliament and his constitution may not last very long."
(*No typo. Quoted in Noam Chomsky, "Turning the Tide: US Intervention in Central America and the Struggle for Peace," Boston: South End Press, 1985, p. 196," from Lawrence S. Wittner, "American Intervention in Greece, 1943-1949," New York: Columbia University Press, 1982.)
Chomsky reminds us that Greece was "whacked good" shortly after under the US-backed fascist regime, and after few years, the second flea, Cyprus, was accorded the similar treatment.Well, since then, "the elephant" has become monstrously weighty with the trunk acquiring a global diameter and so even the European giants look like fleas. Recently, US Representative Peter King (a Republican from New York) ridiculed France and recommended changes in the alliance:"We may have to restructure the alliance, form a new alliance which the
French will not be a part of. We cannot allow a second-rate country to have a veto power or obstructionist power over American foreign policy."One more example: In 1970, the people of Chile elected Salvador Allende (1908-1973)(1970-1973) as its president, but the Masters in Washington DC neither liked nor accepted the result. Henry Kissinger (chief of National Security Council 1969-1973 and secretary of state 1973-1977) intoxicated with Super Power Liquor had this to say:"I don't see why we have to let a country go Marxist just because its people are irresponsible."
(Blum, William, "A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the
Present," "Z Magazine, June 1999." www.zmag.org)The "irresponsible" Chileans had to be taught by the responsible Masters as to what kind of government they should have. Therefore, in 1973 the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) supported a bloody coup, which resulted in death of Allende and many other Chileans. The US imposed General Augusto Pinochet ruled until 1989 with the usual atrocities and executions.
(Sometime back Pinochet was put under house arrest, while in England on a private visit, on the order of a Spanish judge but was later released. If the case would have been pursued further, there were chances that the trial would have dragged Dr. Kissinger too. However, justice is not that blind
with the powerful otherwise the Union Carbide's Warren Anderson, living safely and luxuriously in the US would have been handed over to the Indian government long time ago for the death of thousands of Indians. In 1984, its Indian subsidiary located in Bhopal, India leaked deadly gas in the dark of night causing thousands of people deep in sleep never to rise again.)Elected by the United Nations:President George Bush, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell, UN Ambassador John Negroponte, and White House Spokesperson Ari Fleisher are all over the media and/or the UN that one does not at all miss Kofi Annan, the actual UN Secretary General. Every now and then Bush admonishes UN to speed up its work on Iraq or else US will act unilaterally - that is wage war against Iraq. This is simply the US style; it does not matter that the US is just 5% of the world population and is one of about 200 countries in the world.
The United Nations has become a convenient instrument in the hands of the US government - use it when possible to manipulate and criticize it when not possible to get what is wanted. In that situation, forget the UN and act unilaterally. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, US Ambassador to the UN and later US Senator, once boasted about the role he played in blocking the UN from fulfilling its duty:"The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success."
It would be very difficult for the US to get resolutions passed in the UN General Assembly where all the member countries would participate in a true democratic fashion; even if the US tried to twist and bribe all those countries opposing war, it would be a costly and an almost impossible affair. So what it does is to get its resolutions passed in the Security Council which comprises of 15 members - 5 permanent members (Britain, China, France, Russia, US) with veto power, and 10 rotating members (serving a two year term with five members changed every year).
In this world, every system, idea, or institute - including "democracy," "human rights," "UN" - has a loophole.Thus, it is safe to conclude from the above examples that United States is not the right country to question others about weapons of mass destruction because its own record is such that US itself qualifies as the first one to be questioned.